IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i20p9017-d1769190.html

Expert Credibility Factors and Their Impact on Digital Innovation and Sustainability Adoption in China’s Social Media Ecosystem

Author

Listed:
  • Shasha Li

    (School of Humanities, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710061, China)

  • Chao Gao

    (School of International Relations and Public Affairs, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China
    School of Engineering and Design, Technical University of Munich, 80333 Munich, Germany)

Abstract

The successful implementation of digital transformation initiatives depends critically on public trust in experts guiding these processes. In today’s digital media environment, expert trust faces significant challenges, potentially hindering sustainable innovation adoption. This study investigates how expert credibility dimensions and information characteristics shape trust in digital transformation experts among Chinese social media users. We employed a mixed-methods approach combining a survey of 850 Chinese social media users, a quasi-experiment testing a digital expert verification feature, and secondary data analysis. The study measured multiple dimensions of expert trust while examining relationships with expert cognition factors and media usage variables through regression, mediation, and structural equation modeling. Expert trust in digital transformation exists at moderate levels ( M = 6.82/10), with higher trust in digital innovation research ( M = 7.12) than specific sustainability recommendations ( M = 6.59). Expert authenticity emerged as the strongest predictor of trust ( β = 0.27), followed by professional competence ( β = 0.21). A “digital exposure paradox” emerged whereby higher volumes of expert information negatively predicted trust ( β = −0.18), while information quality positively predicted trust ( β = 0.25). The digital verification feature causally enhanced trust (DID = 0.57), with institutional sources strengthening trust while user-generated content diminished it. The findings reveal that digital transformation expert trust involves multi-dimensional evaluations beyond traditional credibility assessments. The “digital exposure paradox” suggests that prioritizing information quality over quantity, demonstrating expert authenticity, and implementing verification mechanisms can enhance trust and accelerate sustainable digital transformation adoption.

Suggested Citation

  • Shasha Li & Chao Gao, 2025. "Expert Credibility Factors and Their Impact on Digital Innovation and Sustainability Adoption in China’s Social Media Ecosystem," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-34, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:20:p:9017-:d:1769190
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/20/9017/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/20/9017/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anne Reif & Tim Kneisel & Markus Schäfer & Monika Taddicken, 2020. "Why Are Scientific Experts Perceived as Trustworthy? Emotional Assessment within TV and YouTube Videos," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 191-205.
    2. Katherine A. McComas & Craig W. Trumbo, 2001. "Source Credibility in Environmental Health – Risk Controversies: Application of Meyer's Credibility Index," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(3), pages 467-480, June.
    3. Anne Reif & Tim Kneisel & Markus Schäfer & Monika Taddicken, 2020. "Why Are Scientific Experts Perceived as Trustworthy? Emotional Assessment within TV and YouTube Videos," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 191-205.
    4. Bennich, Amelie, 2024. "The digital imperative: Institutional pressures to digitalise," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    5. Lynn Frewer & Steve Hunt & Mary Brennan & Sharron Kuznesof & Mitchell Ness & Chris Ritson, 2003. "The views of scientific experts on how the public conceptualize uncertainty," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 75-85, January.
    6. Richard Van Noorden, 2014. "Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network," Nature, Nature, vol. 512(7513), pages 126-129, August.
    7. Steven Van de Walle & Koen Migchelbrink, 2022. "Institutional quality, corruption, and impartiality: the role of process and outcome for citizen trust in public administration in 173 European regions," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(1), pages 9-27, January.
    8. Ragnar Lofstedt, 2013. "Communicating Food Risks in an Era of Growing Public Distrust: Three Case Studies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(2), pages 192-202, February.
    9. Alison Legood & Lisa van der Werff & Allan Lee & Deanne den Hartog & Daan van Knippenberg, 2023. "A Critical Review of the Conceptualization, Operationalization, and Empirical Literature on Cognition‐Based and Affect‐Based Trust," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(2), pages 495-537, March.
    10. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Weiping Wang & Hongxuan Ji & Ying Wang & Zhisen Wang, 2025. "Exploring how the public “see” scientists: A systematic literature review, 1983–2024," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, December.
    2. Gökçe Zeybek Kabakci & Umut Yener Kara & Gökçe Baydar Çavdar & Emre Toros, 2025. "Bridging the Divide: An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Trust in Science," SAGE Open, , vol. 15(3), pages 21582440251, August.
    3. Pizzichini, L. & Sabatini, A. & Gregori, G.L. & Cillo, V. & Sasso, P., 2025. "Digital servitisation for sustainable business model innovation in the automotive industry: The empirical perspective of a car dealer," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    4. Sullivan, Daniel & Schmitt, Harrison J. & Calloway, Eric E. & Clausen, Whitney & Tucker, Pamela & Rayman, Jamie & Gerhardstein, Ben, 2021. "Chronic environmental contamination: A narrative review of psychosocial health consequences, risk factors, and pathways to community resilience," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    5. Simone Belli & Carlos Gonzalo-Penela, 2020. "Science, research, and innovation infospheres in Google results of the Ibero-American countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 635-653, May.
    6. Xiaoqin Zhu & Xiaofei Xie, 2015. "Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 790-810, May.
    7. Mazarakis, Athanasios & Peters, Isabella, 2015. "Quo Vadis German Scholarly Communication in Economics?," EconStor Conference Papers 110679, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    8. Rîndașu Sînziana-Maria & Ionescu-Feleagă Liliana & Ionescu Bogdan-Ștefan & Radu Valentin, 2025. "The Role of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Shaping Business Innovation: Insights from End Users’ Perspectives and Practices," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 19(1), pages 1-24.
    9. Sergio Copiello, 2019. "Research Interest: another undisclosed (and redundant) algorithm by ResearchGate," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(1), pages 351-360, July.
    10. Yan, Weiwei & Zhang, Yin, 2018. "Research universities on the ResearchGate social networking site: An examination of institutional differences, research activity level, and social networks formed," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 385-400.
    11. Hunter Bennett & Flynn Slattery, 2023. "Graphical abstracts are associated with greater Altmetric attention scores, but not citations, in sport science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3793-3804, June.
    12. Liwei Zhang & Jue Wang, 2021. "What affects publications’ popularity on Twitter?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 9185-9198, November.
    13. Mike Thelwall, 2021. "Measuring Societal Impacts Of Research With Altmetrics? Common Problems And Mistakes," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(5), pages 1302-1314, December.
    14. repec:hal:wpaper:hal-02728160 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Łukasz Wiechetek & Zbigniew Pastuszak, 2022. "Academic social networks metrics: an effective indicator for university performance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(3), pages 1381-1401, March.
    16. Dalvi-Esfahani, Mohammad & Barati-Ahmadabadi, Hajar & Ramayah, T. & Turner, Jason J. & A. Iahad, Noorminshah & Azar, Nasrin, 2025. "Stimulus-organism-response framework of decision-makers intention to adopt generative AI to replace entry-level jobs: The moderating impact of personality traits," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    17. Yanchun Chen & Gaogao Peng & Yuwei Tu & Tianzhi Ren, 2025. "A Study of Risk Communication and Perceptions of Official and Public Agendas in the Context of Emergencies: Based on the Itaewon Stampede," SAGE Open, , vol. 15(2), pages 21582440251, May.
    18. Sergio Copiello & Pietro Bonifaci, 2019. "ResearchGate Score, full-text research items, and full-text reads: a follow-up study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 1255-1262, May.
    19. Massimo Finocchiaro Castro & Calogero Guccio & Domenica Romeo & Francesco Vidoli, 2025. "How does institutional quality affect the efficiency of local government? An assessment of Italian municipalities," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 42(2), pages 569-597, July.
    20. Eric E. Calloway & Alethea L. Chiappone & Harrison J. Schmitt & Daniel Sullivan & Ben Gerhardstein & Pamela G. Tucker & Jamie Rayman & Amy L. Yaroch, 2020. "Exploring Community Psychosocial Stress Related to Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Contamination: Lessons Learned from a Qualitative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-19, November.
    21. Arnout R. H. Fischer & Aarieke E. I. De Jong & Rob De Jonge & Lynn J. Frewer & Maarten J. Nauta, 2005. "Improving Food Safety in the Domestic Environment: The Need for a Transdisciplinary Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 503-517, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:20:p:9017-:d:1769190. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.